2019
DOI: 10.1002/pds.4837
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Identification of gastrointestinal perforation based on ICD‐10 code in a Japanese administrative medical information database and associated drug exposure risk factors

Abstract: Purpose The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of gastrointestinal (GI) perforation ICD‐10 coding in the Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database and to examine drug exposure risk factors for GI perforation. Methods A total of 100 patients with GI perforation ICD‐10 codes were selected randomly from Kagawa University Hospital's DPC database between April 2011 and December 2016. Two experienced specialist physicians independently reviewed the medical records and classified cases as “definit… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Full‐text articles of 42 studies were retrieved, and six were excluded because they compared aggregate data, validated self‐report questionnaires using claims data as a reference standard, were review articles, were aimed at refining the cancer registry and not for research purposes, did not report case‐defining methods, or did not report a reference standard 12,19–23 . There were 36 eligible studies, including 29 studies 8,10,11,13,24–48 that validated administrative data using an external reference standard and seven studies 9,49–54 that validated administrative data using other data within the same database.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Full‐text articles of 42 studies were retrieved, and six were excluded because they compared aggregate data, validated self‐report questionnaires using claims data as a reference standard, were review articles, were aimed at refining the cancer registry and not for research purposes, did not report case‐defining methods, or did not report a reference standard 12,19–23 . There were 36 eligible studies, including 29 studies 8,10,11,13,24–48 that validated administrative data using an external reference standard and seven studies 9,49–54 that validated administrative data using other data within the same database.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We also found studies that evaluated clinical conditions, such as gastrointestinal perforation, febrile neutropenia, and postoperative infection. 27,39,45 A study on dental claims assessed the validity of procedures, number of teeth, and time of anesthesia. 42 Another study published after our search period also validated operative information.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The diagnosis of gastrointestinal perforation, defined with ICD-10 in the DPC data from Kagawa University Hospital, which provided its data to Mid-Net, was validated against the gold standard based on a chart review. 32 Ando et al estimated the PPV of local or ICD-10 codes for acute myocardial infraction. 33 Several other validation studies are also available.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In another example, a validation study compared claims data from a single hospital with data from medical charts. The diagnosis of gastrointestinal perforation, defined with ICD‐10 in the DPC data from Kagawa University Hospital, which provided its data to Mid‐Net, was validated against the gold standard based on a chart review 32 . Ando et al estimated the PPV of local or ICD‐10 codes for acute myocardial infraction 33 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The body sealing mechanisms of the perforation site have already begun and might be completed. Therefore, the question comes of how important to specifically confirm whether the process of the leak is active and ongoing or not [6]. Theoretically, the difference is very important.…”
Section: Review Pathophysiologymentioning
confidence: 99%